Low carb... Is it a diet fad?
Options
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Tentatively asking a question that may open a bigger can of worms... Is there a concrete definition of SAD? As in a certain macro breakdown, certain sugar level, etc? Basically, what is the standard for the Standard American Diet?
Macros for the SAD are given as 50/15/35 as mentioned in my previous post, with the largest source of sugar being sugary beverages such as Coke. The biggest problem with the so-called SAD isn't so much the macro content but the caloric content and amount of foods with low nutritional density such as soda and snack foods. Also, caloric consumption has increased about 600 calories per day since the early 50's and activity levels have plumetted. However, SAD is just an aggrigate measure like BMI and useful for comparing populations but not so much as a predictor of individual dietary habits. I really don't know too many people that would qualify as eating the SAD.
Who determined the macros and content of the SAD?
Aggrigate food consumption measures is how I assume it's done. Food supply is a known quanitity so estimates can be drawn based on those and the population stats. Although, a properly done survey could be used as well I don't think that's how it was arrived at.
That makes sense. I guess it's the best that can be done on a large scale. I wonder if they adjust for homegrown food. I realize that most people don't grow much of their food, but it's not a small population that has a small summer garden. And then there are those that raise or hunt some of their meat. (oh, I wonder if they include hunting data). Not many people raise their own cookies or Doritos though.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Tentatively asking a question that may open a bigger can of worms... Is there a concrete definition of SAD? As in a certain macro breakdown, certain sugar level, etc? Basically, what is the standard for the Standard American Diet?
Macros for the SAD are given as 50/15/35 as mentioned in my previous post, with the largest source of sugar being sugary beverages such as Coke. The biggest problem with the so-called SAD isn't so much the macro content but the caloric content and amount of foods with low nutritional density such as soda and snack foods. Also, caloric consumption has increased about 600 calories per day since the early 50's and activity levels have plumetted. However, SAD is just an aggrigate measure like BMI and useful for comparing populations but not so much as a predictor of individual dietary habits. I really don't know too many people that would qualify as eating the SAD.
Who determined the macros and content of the SAD?
Aggrigate food consumption measures is how I assume it's done. Food supply is a known quanitity so estimates can be drawn based on those and the population stats. Although, a properly done survey could be used as well I don't think that's how it was arrived at.
I think they look at both, although the consumption overall is considered a better source than the surveys by many in measuring changes over time (survey information is unreliable in various ways).
Surveys do add more resolution to the data but they can be very inaccurate. There's a lot of great techniques but I'm just not the familiar with most of the details of this data. It's takes a lot of statistical gymnastics to take the macro measurements and apply them to families and individuals.0 -
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
Because this is an over-simplification of how things work. Macros are determined by your goals, medical needs, and personal eating preference. And while there is a lot of science that would suggest a benefit from .8-1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, fat and carbs really don't have standards (outside of essential fatty-acid minimums).
Overall, macros can be very subjective in nature and your macros vs another persons can differ vastly. Micro's have some RDA standards but it's hard to truly know if you are achieving all of those since most of the MFP database doesn't accurately address that. So at best, you can incorporate a variety of foods to ensure the highest availability of nutrients.
Regarding the bold, I couldn't agree more.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
I agree but none of those are issues with a proper balanced diet either. Many people who go low carb fall into the trap of eating high sat fat, high sodium foods and don't eat enough plants so that wouldn't do well for them if they had such concerns. Dietary choices go far beyond what your macros are as Nick was pointing out.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
And genetics, body composition and exercise play a much greater roll then just the particular diet that one follows.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.0 -
I don't think anyone claimed that eating a healthful diet ensures that one will be healthy.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think anyone claimed that eating a healthful diet ensures that one will be healthy.
seriously, it can improve your health, but it is not going to prevent cancer or other disease....
there are people that are healthy and have had heart attacks or get a cancer diagnosis....
0 -
The best way of eating that is sustainable and you can still eat all your macros along with counting calories is intermittent fasting0
-
Deadlifter87 wrote: »The best way of eating that is sustainable and you can still eat all your macros along with counting calories is intermittent fasting
well that is not true either... I did IF for six months and while I liked it, it did not fit into my lifestyle and was not sustainable...
and I do not do IF and I have no problem hitting macros or micros...0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
best thing they ever did was bring back the ignore feature...0 -
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
Because this is an over-simplification of how things work. Macros are determined by your goals, medical needs, and personal eating preference. And while there is a lot of science that would suggest a benefit from .8-1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, fat and carbs really don't have standards (outside of essential fatty-acid minimums).
Overall, macros can be very subjective in nature and your macros vs another persons can differ vastly. Micro's have some RDA standards but it's hard to truly know if you are achieving all of those since most of the MFP database doesn't accurately address that. So at best, you can incorporate a variety of foods to ensure the highest availability of nutrients.
Regarding the bold, I couldn't agree more.
Yes but wouldn't the inclusion of "your" in NDJ's statement - 'hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target' cover the individual needs and variability that needs to be considered based on specific personal goals, medical needs, and eating preferences?
I think we are all going around in circles (WSTBD) about semantics. I feel a bit like Bill Clinton, but it comes down to what your interpretation of "is" is. Should the statement be:
If an individual hits the appropriate macro and micro nutrient goals for their specific needs and stays within an appropriate calorie target, then any diet can be healthy?0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
My point is that food is not the only thing that affects our health.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
And genetics, body composition and exercise play a much greater roll then just the particular diet that one follows.
Exactly. A person eating a "healthy diet" may be quite unhealthy if they are sedentary. Activity level is just as important, if not more so.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
And genetics, body composition and exercise play a much greater roll then just the particular diet that one follows.
Exactly. A person eating a "healthy diet" may be quite unhealthy if they are sedentary. Activity level is just as important, if not more so.
Certainly can agree with this. (Although I don't think anyone was claiming otherwise. I do think too often minor dietary differences get focused on while more significant things are ignored.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
My point is that food is not the only thing that affects our health.
I don't see where anyone said it is.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
My point is that food is not the only thing that affects our health.
I don't see where anyone said it is.
who is saying food is the only thing that affects health?
wow, need to argue more...geez...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions